this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
326 points (96.0% liked)

Linux

48375 readers
1448 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (4 children)

But for why (I'm commenting this before reading) wouldn't it make more sense to home I'm the scope of systemd so it can be easier to maintain? Why have it do everything?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

systemd is more of a set of products and software components branded under a single name rather than a single thing.
systemd itself is rather simple, as most other pieces systemd-* software, like systemd-boot, systemd-networkd and systemd-resolvd. these are usually more stable and less bloated than more popular alternatives

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

As long as they can work independently, yes. If they are modular and a distro admin (or just a computer admin) can choose to install and use systemd-x but not install or use systemd-y, we are in good business

Now if you have to take a few you don't like or need to use so that the one component you do want works, then no

I honestly don't know enough of systemd to say either way

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most of systemd stuff is decoupled well. You don't need to use networkd to make use of resolved for example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Good to know, thanks for the answer

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Oh okay I didn't know that thanks

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You can't think of it a single massive project. It's actually lots of small components.

We could argue the linux kernel is bloated too. The reality is though, provided the project is designed to be modular (as SystemD is), it actually makes sense to keep it together, to ensure there is a standard base and all the components are synchronised fully with their API's.

It also saves distro's a lot of effort.

[–] technom 2 points 7 months ago

In practice, all those tight coupling between components mean that it behaves more or less monolithic, despite the claims to the contrary. Replacing them with alternatives is a pain because something else breaks or some software has a hard dependency on it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Oooh okay that makes more sense. Thanks I didn't know that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I can understand that it makes it easier to add changes that would benefit systemd and distros in general. I read that they introduced run0 to solve long shortcomings of sudo (I'm not aware of which). That sounds logical.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why have it do everything?

Isn't the guy behind systemd a (former?) Microsoft employee? I feel as though that might offer a clue as to why the trajectory towards bloat.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

He's working for Microsoft now but it's very recent, he developed systemd while working at RedHat.

I don't even know of he's still working on it. There are a lot of things to be said about systemd and Lennart but the link to Microsoft is irrelevant.